jcjordan wrote:Which is true, they are not a known factor for reducing cycling across the wider population and regardless of what you may think a bunch of posters here do not make a significant statistical basis to back it up.

jcjordan wrote:Which is true, they are not a known factor for reducing cycling across the wider population and regardless of what you may think a bunch of posters here do not make a significant statistical basis to back it up.

But 67.1% mentioned unsafe road conditions for not riding more frequently, i.e. four times more commonly cited than helmets. It's a minor issue. Stop wasting time on it.

Ok, so we should ignore the MHL issue should we? I disagree, I think some of us can campaign on more than one issue at a time. I would like to encourage cycling and therefore would like to see both the infrastructure improved and bareheaded riding legalised. I wonder though, if the imposition of MHLs has contributed to those who see the roads, which bicycles have been travelling along for well over 100 years, are now seen as being unsafe even in the face of lower accident and fatality rates. Given how much safer the roads are now, lower injury and death rates now than a few decades ago, I wonder how the impression that cycling on roads is unsafe has taken hold.

MHL certainly is a minority reason for reduced cyclist numbers, but it isn't irrelevent and it is certainly the cheapest way to improve cyclist numbers. Driver safety combined with infrastructure improvements are the most effective way to address the big concerns but they are out of control expensive and difficult to implement and action in a meaningful way. Recinding the helmet law is easier than changing the basics of how we approach vehicular collisions and passing responsibilities.

Xplora wrote:MHL certainly is a minority reason for reduced cyclist numbers, but it isn't irrelevent and it is certainly the cheapest way to improve cyclist numbers. Driver safety combined with infrastructure improvements are the most effective way to address the big concerns but they are out of control expensive and difficult to implement and action in a meaningful way. Recinding the helmet law is easier than changing the basics of how we approach vehicular collisions and passing responsibilities.

And none of that even begins to address the many other costs of MHLs on Australian cyclists! Fundamental freedom of choice, reduction in pleasure from cycling, impact on bike share schemes, etc.... Of course many cyclists here will laugh at such "emotional" factors but wander around Amsterdam, Copenhagen or even Darwin and you can begin to appreciate it more.

Alternatively get out and feel the wind in your hair for an afternoon!

Xplora wrote:MHL certainly is a minority reason for reduced cyclist numbers, but it isn't irrelevent and it is certainly the cheapest way to improve cyclist numbers. Driver safety combined with infrastructure improvements are the most effective way to address the big concerns but they are out of control expensive and difficult to implement and action in a meaningful way. Recinding the helmet law is easier than changing the basics of how we approach vehicular collisions and passing responsibilities.

And none of that even begins to address the many other costs of MHLs on Australian cyclists! Fundamental freedom of choice, reduction in pleasure from cycling, impact on bike share schemes, etc.... Of course many cyclists here will laugh at such "emotional" factors but wander around Amsterdam, Copenhagen or even Darwin and you can begin to appreciate it more.

Alternatively get out and feel the wind in your hair for an afternoon!

Governments have put limitations on choice for the good of social welfare since the beginning of time, as is there central purpose. MHLs are no different to speed limits, DUI laws, littering, etc in their general purpose.

As with all these laws the belief is that the restrictions place on society are overall beneficial. Where the majority of members disagree, such as with prohibition, they can rise up and work towards changing them.

In this case I have seen no evidence which shows a overall benefit to improved cycling numbers which would warrant the removal of the laws when compared to protection aspects.

But 67.1% mentioned unsafe road conditions for not riding more frequently, i.e. four times more commonly cited than helmets. It's a minor issue. Stop wasting time on it.

Ok, so we should ignore the MHL issue should we? I disagree, I think some of us can campaign on more than one issue at a time. I would like to encourage cycling and therefore would like to see both the infrastructure improved and bareheaded riding legalised. I wonder though, if the imposition of MHLs has contributed to those who see the roads, which bicycles have been travelling along for well over 100 years, are now seen as being unsafe even in the face of lower accident and fatality rates. Given how much safer the roads are now, lower injury and death rates now than a few decades ago, I wonder how the impression that cycling on roads is unsafe has taken hold.

DS

I dunno, but from my personal experience, that attitude predates MHLs. Have they reinforced that attitude? It's plausible, but I can't see how you'd ever get a definitive answer.

jcjordan wrote:Governments have put limitations on choice for the good of social welfare since the beginning of time, as is there central purpose. MHLs are no different to speed limits, DUI laws, littering, etc in their general purpose.

As with all these laws the belief is that the restrictions place on society are overall beneficial. Where the majority of members disagree, such as with prohibition, they can rise up and work towards changing them.

No disputes there. Except all those things you mention are individual actions that significantly and regularly hurt others in society. Me not wearing a helmet doesn't.

jcjordan wrote:In this case I have seen no evidence which shows a overall benefit to improved cycling numbers which would warrant the removal of the laws when compared to protection aspects.

So remind me again what public benefit have MHLs had?

high_tea wrote:I dunno, but from my personal experience, that attitude predates MHLs. Have they reinforced that attitude? It's plausible, but I can't see how you'd ever get a definitive answer.

In my personal experience as a child pre-MHLs was one of riding around the neighbourhood on my bicycle. All the neighbourhood children did this. We set up jumps and race down hills and launched ourselves off them. We rode everywhere and anywhere in the neighbourhood. Helmets were rarely see. Scraped knees and elbows we occasionally had but no bid dramas or head injuries. (Probably 50% of my riding was on roads, 50% on footpaths, carparks, backalleys, etc.) Around the start of my teens I lived in Holland, again only 50% of the riding here was on roads without a helmet.

I find it sad that we tell our children that the roads are too dangerous.

Last edited by human909 on Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

My personal experience was that when I was a kid we were encouraged to get out on our bikes. This was back in the days when cycling infrastructure was more commonly referred to as "roads". This is in stark contrast to today where parents are discouraging kids from riding bikes, even more so if they can't drive their kids to a nice safe bike path away from the roads. MHLs reinforce these attitudes.

human909 wrote:No disputes there. Except all those things you mention are individual actions that significantly and regularly hurt others in society. Me not wearing a helmet doesn't.

Just to back this up - if injury and death was a principal concern in the restriction of freedom, then guns would be totally banned and cars would be totally banned and knives would be totally banned. There are far more deaths from these things than lives saved by helmets.jc, your argument about restriction for the good of society doesn't stack up against the evidence.

human909 wrote:No disputes there. Except all those things you mention are individual actions that significantly and regularly hurt others in society. Me not wearing a helmet doesn't.

Just to back this up - if injury and death was a principal concern in the restriction of freedom, then guns would be totally banned and cars would be totally banned and knives would be totally banned. There are far more deaths from these things than lives saved by helmets.jc, your argument about restriction for the good of society doesn't stack up against the evidence.

The three most dangerous things out there ?Cigarettes, alcohol and food. T activity most hazardous to your health ?Sitting. Tke your pick, but cycling head injuries don't rate at 1: 1 000 000.

"Are downhill riders better off choosing helmets that were engineered for the crashes they'll likely face on a downhill course, rather than those engineered for 75-mph trips into car barriers?"

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/DH-Helmets ... Safer.htmlPosted by H909 in another thread. Very interesting, and sensible article, about the variance in expected impacts for PPE. You could wear a solid steel helmet, but it wouldn't help in a crash because the flesh under the helmet isn't protected. One ongoing comment is that some helmet is better than none, but there are design parameters that must be accounted for. A bike helmet isn't designed for impacts beyond falling over on a PSP; it must have extremely limited value in many car/bike accidents to meet the standard and still be practical.

To me, the article seemed to mostly be about motorcycle helmet standards, and about how designing meaningful experiments is harder than it looks. All good stuff! I didn't see anything that would challenge the contention that a bicycle helmet is better than nothing, nor that helmet efficacy is well-settled.

Another interesting point was the magazine that went and tested and compared helmets cf a simple pass/fail wrt the standard. It's highly likely that some bike helmets are better than others, but how'd you ever know?

The interest I had in the article revolved around the fact that the standards are not necessarily suitable for purpose, and don't support the argument that they deserve legislative weight. Honestly, I don't know if I'd come up with anything better if I was Standards Australia, but the beef with MHL is at a legal level - because of the social/health/psychological impacts of the law.

high_tea wrote:To me, the article seemed to mostly be about motorcycle helmet standards, and about how designing meaningful experiments is harder than it looks. All good stuff! I didn't see anything that would challenge the contention that a bicycle helmet is better than nothing, nor that helmet efficacy is well-settled.

Another interesting point was the magazine that went and tested and compared helmets cf a simple pass/fail wrt the standard. It's highly likely that some bike helmets are better than others, but how'd you ever know?

Nor did I. But I simply posted it in the other head because it actually had sensible and analytical discussion regarding rigid vs less rigid helmet design.

There is alot of room for discussion. Furthermore once you explore the issues you quickly come to the conclusion that bike helmets are not an optimal helmet for high speed road riding. However an optimal helmet would be far to heavy to for road cyclists to tolerate. Overall it should be clear to most that a helmet is still not very good protection against head impacts. Its no magic bullet. Helmets do improve the safety of an individual but sometimes people give bicycle helmets more credit than they deserve.

jcjordan wrote:Governments have put limitations on choice for the good of social welfare since the beginning of time, as is there central purpose. MHLs are no different to speed limits, DUI laws, littering, etc in their general purpose.

As with all these laws the belief is that the restrictions place on society are overall beneficial. Where the majority of members disagree, such as with prohibition, they can rise up and work towards changing them.

No disputes there. Except all those things you mention are individual actions that significantly and regularly hurt others in society. Me not wearing a helmet doesn't.

jcjordan wrote:In this case I have seen no evidence which shows a overall benefit to improved cycling numbers which would warrant the removal of the laws when compared to protection aspects.

So remind me again what public benefit have MHLs had?

high_tea wrote:I dunno, but from my personal experience, that attitude predates MHLs. Have they reinforced that attitude? It's plausible, but I can't see how you'd ever get a definitive answer.

In my personal experience as a child pre-MHLs was one of riding around the neighbourhood on my bicycle. All the neighbourhood children did this. We set up jumps and race down hills and launched ourselves off them. We rode everywhere and anywhere in the neighbourhood. Helmets were rarely see. Scraped knees and elbows we occasionally had but no bid dramas or head injuries. (Probably 50% of my riding was on roads, 50% on footpaths, carparks, backalleys, etc.) Around the start of my teens I lived in Holland, again only 50% of the riding here was on roads without a helmet.

I find it sad that we tell our children that the roads are too dangerous.

MHL just like seatbelts, speed limits have evidence behind them that shows are injury reduction and therefore a overall benefit to society.

Yes I can also remember as a kid being able to ride on the streets. But this is a misguided desire for our modern world. The fact is that over the last 15 years car numbers have nearly tripled. The fact is with that many vehicles are street are busier and less safe for children

[quote="jcjordan"]MHL just like seatbelts, speed limits have evidence behind them that shows are injury reduction and therefore a overall benefit to society. /quote]

Really? Find some that isn't provided or funded by vested interests or axe grinders like that Brit lady that got thrown in here for no other reason than pot stirring.

I'm pretty sure that there's been studies published stating that at a societal level, Australians ARE the fattest people on Earth. One of the best ways to reduce or stop this at a personal level is to increase the amount of incidental exercise, one possible way would be by riding the 800m to the shops instead of driving.Of course this is an impossible dream because the roads are so dangerously congested by all the people who believe that they can't use active transport because the roads are so dangerously crowded.

Dozens or hundreds of deaths a year from our sedentary lifestyle versus maybe a few dead cyclists from head injuries...

Tree, meet Forest.

...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.London Boy 29/12/2011

jcjordan wrote:MHL just like seatbelts, speed limits have evidence behind them that shows are injury reduction and therefore a overall benefit to society.

Really? Care to provide some evidence that MHLs reduce injuries or are you content to leave it as just an assertion?

jcjordan wrote:Yes I can also remember as a kid being able to ride on the streets. But this is a misguided desire for our modern world. The fact is that over the last 15 years car numbers have nearly tripled. The fact is with that many vehicles are street are busier and less safe for children

Aah yes, the good old days. When people drove home from the pub drunk. When most cars had drum brakes, ponderous steering and rubbish suspension. When speeding was something to brag about. When the road toll in Victoria was well over 1,000 per annum.

jcjordan wrote:MHL just like seatbelts, speed limits have evidence behind them that shows are injury reduction and therefore a overall benefit to society. /quote]

Really? Find some that isn't provided or funded by vested interests or axe grinders like that Brit lady that got thrown in here for no other reason than pot stirring.

I'm pretty sure that there's been studies published stating that at a societal level, Australians ARE the fattest people on Earth. One of the best ways to reduce or stop this at a personal level is to increase the amount of incidental exercise, one possible way would be by riding the 800m to the shops instead of driving.Of course this is an impossible dream because the roads are so dangerously congested by all the people who believe that they can't use active transport because the roads are so dangerously crowded.

Dozens or hundreds of deaths a year from our sedentary lifestyle versus maybe a few dead cyclists from head injuries...

Tree, meet Forest.

when you look at the reasons that we put up in the CPF study (would they not be one of your vetted interest groups, oh sorry there on our side so its ok) MHL only accounted for around 13% of responded as a reason to not ride. If we want to get people exercisisng we need to get past the impression that people have busy lives and don't have the time to pop round to the shops on a bike.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.